4 ms·

Is there no ethical argument to be made that the domain would better serve the car company? Domain names are a limited resource, is it more ethical to practice

by toolz 4y ago

Is there no ethical argument to be made that the domain would better serve the car company? Domain names are a limited resource, is it more ethical to practice "first is right" ethics?

littlestymaar 4y ago
Well, if they believe in markets that's basically what money is for: you think something is worth more to you than to somebody else, then just pay the other party for it. There's plenty of cases where this kind of reasoning fails, because it doesn't care about ethics, but in this exact situation there no ethical question at stakes, especially since Uzi Nissan bought this domain name in good faith. It's just a matter of how much the two companies value their respective utility for this scarce resource. (+ insert rant here about how all capitalists love is crony capitalism and how much they hate markets)
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  It's interesting to ask oneself, I think, how many person-hours of lawyer labor Nissan paid for, and whether less money than that could have been consolidated into one lump-sum payment to Mr. Nissan of "a quantity that immediately bumps one individual up to nouveau-riche class," such that whether he had a domain name from which to do business was irrelevant because he didn't have to work. Of course, that assumes Mr. Nissan would have been willing to trade at all. Some people aren't motivated by money, which certainly increases the complexity of the "markets solve all things" hypothesis.
  - littlestymaar 4y ago
    They tried to strong-arm him, he resisted and they ended-up both stuck is a dollar auction game[1], a typical game-theory situation where both players end up losing way more than expected gain at the beginning. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction
  - sobkas 4y ago
    If they start paying for stuff like this without any resistance they will lose deterrent of having enough lawyers to bombard you with lawsuits to the end of your life. Now I will think twice if I want to cross any corporation. This is a chilling effect the are aiming for. Shut up or else.
rakoo 4y ago
Your question relies on multiple assumptions that not everyone, including me, may agree with: - domain names should be distributed based on some measurement of "utility" - the Nissan company is bigger than the Nissan person, therefore they have a higher utility - domain names control should be changed outside of one's control There is no perfect way to assign domain names. As you say, first come first serve has its downsides. But I don't like the idea of big capitalistic companies taking over domain names just because more people know them; in fact that's yet another demonstration of capitalism accumulating even more resources at the expense of someone less.
metadat 4y ago
Domain names aren't actually a limited resource. Only the short ones are. Fundamental flaw of the system, because just like physical real estate, whoever got there first has an enormous advantage. Nobody is arguing on my behalf to kick my landlord to the curb, though.
moomin 4y ago
Watch you don’t apply this reasoning to your own house.
- toolz 4y ago
  eminent domain is used in this way, and I don't really agree with the rule, but there is an argument to be made for my land being taken over because it serves some other purpose better than it serves me.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    You are also paid "fair market value" in emminent domain takings, they don't just seize your property. IDK what Nissan Motors offered Mr. Nissan for the domain but I'm guessing it must have been a case of "it's not for sale" because they probably would have paid nearly anything he asked if he'd been willing to name a price.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  Eminent domain would be a possible analogy in the context of real estate. Though you are correct that very few people argue for eminent domain against their own land holdings.
- adastra22 4y ago
  Arguably, we should. Henry George claimed that a more just society could be achieved with a near-100% land-value tax. If your house sat on valuable land, you would very quickly get pushed out by being unable to pay the land-value tax. Georgists (of which I am one) believe this results in a society that is better overall than the one we live in today.
Macha 4y ago
As someone who owns myname.com for 15 years but also shares their name with a minor celebrity who emerged in the last 10, I'm pretty happy that domain names aren't taken away based on someone more well known occuring with the same name.

by toolz 4y ago

Is there no ethical argument to be made that the domain would better serve the car company? Domain names are a limited resource, is it more ethical to practice "first is right" ethics?

littlestymaar 4y ago

Well, if they believe in markets that's basically what money is for: you think something is worth more to you than to somebody else, then just pay the other party for it. There's plenty of cases where this kind of reasoning fails, because it doesn't care about ethics, but in this exact situation there no ethical question at stakes, especially since Uzi Nissan bought this domain name in good faith. It's just a matter of how much the two companies value their respective utility for this scarce resource. (+ insert rant here about how all capitalists love is crony capitalism and how much they hate markets)

shadowgovt 4y ago
It's interesting to ask oneself, I think, how many person-hours of lawyer labor Nissan paid for, and whether less money than that could have been consolidated into one lump-sum payment to Mr. Nissan of "a quantity that immediately bumps one individual up to nouveau-riche class," such that whether he had a domain name from which to do business was irrelevant because he didn't have to work. Of course, that assumes Mr. Nissan would have been willing to trade at all. Some people aren't motivated by money, which certainly increases the complexity of the "markets solve all things" hypothesis.
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  They tried to strong-arm him, he resisted and they ended-up both stuck is a dollar auction game[1], a typical game-theory situation where both players end up losing way more than expected gain at the beginning. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction
- sobkas 4y ago
  If they start paying for stuff like this without any resistance they will lose deterrent of having enough lawyers to bombard you with lawsuits to the end of your life. Now I will think twice if I want to cross any corporation. This is a chilling effect the are aiming for. Shut up or else.

rakoo 4y ago

Your question relies on multiple assumptions that not everyone, including me, may agree with: - domain names should be distributed based on some measurement of "utility" - the Nissan company is bigger than the Nissan person, therefore they have a higher utility - domain names control should be changed outside of one's control There is no perfect way to assign domain names. As you say, first come first serve has its downsides. But I don't like the idea of big capitalistic companies taking over domain names just because more people know them; in fact that's yet another demonstration of capitalism accumulating even more resources at the expense of someone less.

metadat 4y ago

Domain names aren't actually a limited resource. Only the short ones are. Fundamental flaw of the system, because just like physical real estate, whoever got there first has an enormous advantage. Nobody is arguing on my behalf to kick my landlord to the curb, though.

moomin 4y ago

Watch you don’t apply this reasoning to your own house.

toolz 4y ago
eminent domain is used in this way, and I don't really agree with the rule, but there is an argument to be made for my land being taken over because it serves some other purpose better than it serves me.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  You are also paid "fair market value" in emminent domain takings, they don't just seize your property. IDK what Nissan Motors offered Mr. Nissan for the domain but I'm guessing it must have been a case of "it's not for sale" because they probably would have paid nearly anything he asked if he'd been willing to name a price.
missedthecue 4y ago
Eminent domain would be a possible analogy in the context of real estate. Though you are correct that very few people argue for eminent domain against their own land holdings.
adastra22 4y ago
Arguably, we should. Henry George claimed that a more just society could be achieved with a near-100% land-value tax. If your house sat on valuable land, you would very quickly get pushed out by being unable to pay the land-value tax. Georgists (of which I am one) believe this results in a society that is better overall than the one we live in today.

Macha 4y ago

As someone who owns myname.com for 15 years but also shares their name with a minor celebrity who emerged in the last 10, I'm pretty happy that domain names aren't taken away based on someone more well known occuring with the same name.